I goofed off quite a bit on Sunday and skimmed through much of this thread. Some good stuff; thanks. I had heard of—but for some reason never really explored--Rotten Tomatoes, so that was especially cool.

I’m mostly a Netflix guy, so nothing new from me but FWIW I thought I’d contribute a few of my five-star favorites from the last decade or so that haven’t been mentioned here. Some well-known, others no so much. Warnings: a number of these are foreign, so subtitles; not much for the kiddies, I’m afraid. But next time you’re looking for something to rent….

Tramps - "Whale Rider" Is one of those I've picked up a number of times, but put back. Will have to give that another shot. Yes "Doubt" was excellent. Haven't heard of the others on your list, but plan to give 'em a shot.

This past week, The Hub and I saw "True Grit." Once again, I was blown away by Jeff Bridges' talent. "American Masters" on PBS did a special on him on Tuesday (Wednesday?). An all around amazing artist, including painting, photography, music. He also appears to be a well-rooted human being.

If you've never seen "The Fisher King," with Jeff Bridges and Robin Williams - fantastic movie.

So I was less than blown away by inception. True, the concept behind the story is compelling and has kept me thinking for days. And true, the visuals are pretty cool. But I saw several flaws in the movie that continue to trouble me. Please note that my comments include SPOILERS so do not read on if you have yet to see this movie.

To repeat: INCEPTION SPOILERS FOLLOW

First off, I thought that generally speaking the acting captured from this fine team of actors did not come across as top notch. For much of the movie, the lines felt like they were being read. I think the best examples of this were the conversation at the Paris cafe and the ultimate conversation in Limbo between Cobb and Mal. I felt no depth, no motivation, no emotion just a robotic spewing of words.

This movie was produced from a treatment Nolan himself wrote. It is a 90 page or so book, I understand. I learned this after watching the movie. However, while watching the movie, I has the same sense that I had watching many other movies produced from beloved books. The early Harry Potter movies come to mind. The feeling is this: a lot of things that work in print, or are necessary in print, to tell a fulfilling story end up clouding a two hour movie. Nolan's reverence to the words and plot points in the book undermined how he presented the major concepts and plot arcs in the movie. Following the book too closely out of some obsession to bring it as is to screen ends up leaving the movie watcher wondering if everything is necessary, and yet the fan boy watching the movie will never be satisfied that it is close enough to the book anyway. The example that bothered me the most is that of creating such a complex team to attempt inception. As a moviegoer, I would have been just as satisfied had the team been smaller, simpler. There would have been less that needed to be explained to our architect (and therefore to us). The father in law could have been left out as well. And the chase in Mumbasa. So many of these extra pieces seemed to be reverent to some book I have not read, nor will, rather than necessary to spin a flick.

The viewer is supposed to leave the theater questioning whether everything seen on screen is itself a dream, which is why the top is left spinning at the end. Aside from the fact that a movie being a dream is just an easy out for a director and storyteller, in this case it is a neat concept that makes the moviegoer think. However, several plot points to me seemed inconsistent when promoting this idea. Here's the deal: if the whole thing is a dream (presumably Cobb's) then it is Mal who escaped to the real world when she jumped and it is Cobb who remains stuck asleep. If that were the case, Mal's appearances would not be projections, but would be the real Mal invading Cobb's sleep to try and convince him to rouse (presuming she really does love him and want him back, as she states over and over). If that were the case, she would be more successful killing him than spoiling everything he tries to do when she encounters him. If he were to die, he would either revive or go to limbo. Either of those would make it obvious to him that he was still asleep. Presumably, Mal would know this and would have followed through immediately.

Is the bag guy (gal) really named Mal? That's over the top.

The need for mazes still escapes me.

The love life depicted for 50 dream years in Limbo seems even beyond the image of True Love in Princess Bride. It seems too fantastical to be believed. That is, a movie like this requires tremendous suspension of disbelief, and mine was unstable for much of the movie, but came crashing down at that point. I have some understanding of Love and the fantasy of Love, but that description was beyond the pale. 50 years in one place with one person? I cannot imagine that any amour of love would make that sufferable.

Understand, I enjoyed the movie, and any movie that gets me thinking this much is a winner to an extent. But these points to me undermined my impression of the movie's execution. It was certainly a good movie for watching while sick in bed.